Suchergebnisse

International audience ; After introducing key concepts and definitions in the field of digital identity, this paper will investigate the benefits and drawbacks of existing identity systems on the road toward achieving self-sovereign identity. It will explore, in particular, the use of blockchain technology and biometrics as a means to ensure the "unicity" and "singularity" of identities, and the associated challenges pertaining to the security and confidentiality of personal information. The paper will then describe an alternative approach to self-sovereign identity based on a system of blockchain-based attestations, claims, credentials, and permissions, which are globally portable across the life of an individual. While not dependent on any particular government or organization for administration or legitimacy, credentials and attestations might nonetheless include government-issued identification and biometrics as one of many indicia of identity. Such a solution-based on a recorded and signed digital history of attributes and activities-best approximates the fluidity and granularity of identity, enabling individuals to express only specific facets of their identity, depending on the parties with whom they wish to interact. To illustrate the difficulties inherent in the implementation of a self-sovereign identity system in the real world, the paper will focus on two blockchain-based identity solutions as case studies: (1) Kiva's identity protocol for building credit history in Sierra Leone, and (2) World Food Programme's Building Blocks program for delivering cash aid to refugees in Jordan. Finally, the paper will explore how the combination of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies and self-sovereign identity may contribute to promoting greater economic inclusion. With digital transactions functioning as identity claims within an ecosystem based on self-sovereign identity, new business models might emerge, such as identity insurance schemes, along with the emergence of value-stable cryptocurrencies ("stablecoins") ...

Résumé L'utilisation d'algorithmes informatiques au sein des administrations publiques risque d'obfusquer les fondements factuels et juridiques des décisions administratives. Dans l'effort de respecter les principes d'un gouvernement ouvert ( open data ), le législateur s'est jusqu'à présent focalisé sur la transparence de la décision algorithmique, mais rien n'est précisé sur les données qui vont influencer ces algorithmes. Cet article s'intéresse aux problématiques liées à l'application d'algorithmes dans les décisions administratives, et souligne la nécessité de garantir non seulement l'accès au code source de ces algorithmes, mais aussi l'accès aux bases de données qui les ont entraînés.

International audience ; Cet article s'intéresse aux problématiques liées à l'application d'algorithmes dans les décisions administratives, et plus particulièrement aux données et méthodes utilisées dans ces applications. Le législateur s'est jusqu'à présent focalisé sur la transparence de la "décision" qui n'est qu'un certain type de traitement de données. Mais rien n'est précisé sur les données qui vont influencer ces algorithmes, c'est à dire les données qui se trouvent en amont de la décision. On fait l'hypothèse dans cet article que ce droit à l'explication devrait porter aussi sur les données utilisées pour entraîner ces algorithmes.On fera d'abord un rappel de l'évolution des politiques d'Open data, puis on parlera des nouvelles tendances vers l'algorithmisation du droit et de l'administration dans le contexte du gouvernement ouvert et le rôle joué par les données au sein de ces nouveaux processus décisionnels. Enfin, on analysera la difficulté d'assurer une réelle transparence pour de nouveaux types d'algorithmes (e.g. les algorithmes d'apprentissage automatique) qui seront de plus en plus utilisés au sein de l'administration. Nous soulignerons notamment la nécessité - actuellement encore peu explorée - de garantir non seulement l'accès au code source de ces algorithmes, mais aussi l'accès aux bases de données qui les ont entraînés, ainsi qu'aux critères de sélection utilisés pour construire ces base d'apprentissage.

International audience ; Another notable example of how copyright enforcement has moved well beyond addressing specific infringing content or individuals into Internet governance-based infrastructural enforcement is the graduated response method, terminating the Internet access of individuals that (allegedly and) repeatedly violate copyright. The case of the French Hadopi (Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet), law first, agency next, both highly controversial, illustrates this strategy of dubious effectiveness for the purpose it is meant for, but of high disruptive potential for Internet users and access rights – and potentially affecting other, perfectly legitimate activities as a collateral effect. In this paper, we will describe the unexpected and perverse effects of this law using the notion of legislative serendipity to explain why this law has never reached the target it was intended for.

International audience ; Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform. Teaser: As a trustless technology, Bitcoin tries to solve issues of social coordination and economic exchange by relying, only and exclusively, on technological means. Yet, when looking deeper into the governance structure of this technology, it becomes apparent that technology alone is unable to resolve most of the social and political concerns affecting the Bitcoin network.

International audience ; Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform.

International audience ; Another notable example of how copyright enforcement has moved well beyond addressing specific infringing content or individuals into Internet governance-based infrastructural enforcement is the graduated response method, terminating the Internet access of individuals that (allegedly and) repeatedly violate copyright. The case of the French Hadopi (Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet), law first, agency next, both highly controversial, illustrates this strategy of dubious effectiveness for the purpose it is meant for, but of high disruptive potential for Internet users and access rights – and potentially affecting other, perfectly legitimate activities as a collateral effect. In this paper, we will describe the unexpected and perverse effects of this law using the notion of legislative serendipity to explain why this law has never reached the target it was intended for.

International audience ; Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform.

International audience ; Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform.

International audience " Code is law " refers to the idea that, with the advent of digital technology, code has progressively established itself as the predominant way to regulate the behavior of Internet users. Yet, while computer code can enforce rules more efficiently than legal code, it also comes with a series of limitations, mostly because it is difficult to transpose the ambiguity and flexibility of legal rules into a formalized language which can be interpreted by a machine. With the advent of blockchain technology and associated smart contracts, code is assuming an even stronger role in regulating people's interactions over the Internet, as many contractual transactions get transposed into smart contract code. In this paper, we describe the shift from the traditional notion of " code is law " (i.e. code having the effect of law) to the new conception of " law is code " (i.e. law being defined as code).

International audience ; Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform.

Bitcoin is a decentralised currency and payment system that seeks to eliminate the need for trusted authorities. It relies on a peer-to-peer network and cryptographic protocols to perform the functions of traditional financial intermediaries, such as verifying transactions and preserving the integrity of the system. This article examines the political economy of Bitcoin, in light of a recent dispute that divided the Bitcoin community with regard to a seemingly simple technical issue: whether or not to increase the block size of the Bitcoin blockchain. By looking at the socio-technical constructs of Bitcoin, the article distinguishes between two distinct coordination mechanisms: governance by the infrastructure (achieved via the Bitcoin protocol) and governance of the infrastructure (managed by the community of developers and other stakeholders). It then analyses the invisible politics inherent in these two mechanisms, which together display a highly technocratic power structure. On the one hand, as an attempt to be self-governing and self-sustaining, the Bitcoin network exhibits a strong market-driven approach to social trust and coordination, which has been embedded directly into the technical protocol. On the other hand, despite being an open source project, the development and maintenance of the Bitcoin code ultimately relies on a small core of highly skilled developers who play a key role in the design of the platform.